2025:HHC:6753 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6000 of 2024 Decided on: 20.03.2025 Smt. Narvada Devi … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No. 1-State. : Mrs. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Addl. AG for respondent No. 3. : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That the impugned order/award dated 16.12.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire compensation of structure i.e shop constructed on khasra No.76/1 in favour of the petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6753 3. That in the alternative the Respondents No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in accordance with the sub-section(4) of section-3H of the act National Highways Authority act, 1956.” 2. The controversy involved in this writ petition is with regard to order dated 16.12.2021, (Annexure P-5) issued by the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA)/Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sadar, District Mandi, in terms whereof he has ordered that the acquisition proceeds be distributed in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent in the ratio of 10% and 90%. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there was a dispute as to what is the entitlement of the parties with regard to the acquisition amount, the Authority had no power to pass impugned order and in terms of the provisions of Section 3- H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Authority was bound to have referred the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated, i.e. the learned District Judge concerned. 4. Learned Counsel for the private respondent has submitted that there is on record an affidavit sworn in by the 3 2025:HHC:6753 petitioner in terms whereof she had stated that the entire compensation be paid to the private respondent. This is seriously disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that taking the advantage of the fact that the petitioner is a rustic villager, certain signatures were obtained from her by the private respondent, who happens to be her brother-in-law, on blank papers on the pretext that same were required to ensure that she will get compensation speedily. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a widow and taking advantage of said fact, she stood misled by the private respondent. 5. Be that as it may, a perusal of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, demonstrates that if there is any dispute as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person who whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. In other words, if there is any dispute with regard to the apportionment of the acquisition amount, then the competent authority is bound to refer the matter for decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 6. In the present case, competent authority rather than following the procedure laid down under Section 3-H(4) of the Act 4 2025:HHC:6753 ventured into the adjudication of apportionment of the amount which renders the order passed by the Authority to be bad in law. This writ petition succeeds to said extent. Order dated 16.12.2021 is quashed and set aside having been passed beyond jurisdiction. The matter is remanded back to the Authority concerned with further direction to the Authority to proceed with the matter in terms of the provisions of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 20, 2025 (narender)